Melkizedeq Attack 9

Reply to this 5 hr+ error teaching to be posted as possible on TWR

Torah Without Rabbinics . WordPress . com

Search – Melkizedeq Attack 9
**************************

MALKI ATTACK FROM UK

http://youtu.be/GLxd-wiR8jU – from http://www.thewaybiblicalfellowship.com – not accessible ???

https://www.facebook.com/thewaybiblicalfellowship/ – FB by – John-Paul McMahon <lightin_thedark@hotmail.com>

FROM: Matthew Nolan

>> DATE: November 2, 2015 at 7:11:38 AM PST

>> TO: yst

>> SUBJECT: RE: MALKI ATTACK FROM UK

Rebut of – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 1 (of 3) 2.12.21 http://youtu.be/GLxd-wiR8jU – Introduction and a Common Misunderstanding of Galatians – 29/10/15 (England) – YouTube posted – 10/29/15 (America) by; an individual only Iding himself as “J.P.” from ‘the way biblical fellowship’.

Rebut of – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 2 (of 3) 2.23.33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vBed6Um-W8 fixed/edited to .31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7hCKE2egoE&feature=iv&src_vid=4vBed6Um-W8&annotation_id=annotation_3267184935 – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 2 – Scriptural Misunderstanding and Serious Error – 29/10/15

Rebut of – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 3 (of 3) 33.04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBSKkXfFx8A – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 3 – Heretical Statements and Conclusion – 29/10/15


As you can see this “J.P.” escalates from the benign to the unmasked attack to the ‘lashon harah’ of labeling character assassination statements.

ETA – Video Elapsed Time
*****************************

Rebut of – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Part 1

1/ ETA :22 – Claiming a ‘thorough look’ but yet in error of his own conclusions just as 1Tm.1:7 reveals.

2/ 5:41 – He actually says – “we’re called to be kings & priests certainly” – what does he thinks that means? By Torah Num.3:12 – you cannot be a priest with out being Levite – yet it was not so to begin with Ex.19:5-6. The problem being formed is Ex.19:5-6 is a Nation ‘of’ Melkizedeq Priests VS Num.3:12 ‘instead’ (1 of many chances in Torah) is a Nation ‘with’ Levitical Priests – Big difference!

3/ 5:46 – Claiming that 1Ptr.2:9 ‘Royal Priesthood’ is a ‘leap’ – to the Melkizedeq Priesthood – even tho it is the same verbiage as Ex.19:5-6 – :6 ‘…a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation…’which also does not directly say ‘Melkizedeq Priesthood’ either even tho the only Priesthood at this point this could be speaking of is Melkizedeq. – Note ‘a nation of priests’ would be a ‘Priesthood’ – Read Prv.25:2

4/ 6:01 – “one of the most dangerous doctrines” – He is barely 5mins into this; and makes this leading conclusion statement at this point void of any facts? This reveals his ‘Levitical Mindset’ complete with the desire to protect what he thinks he knows; desiring to lead you to his ‘spoon-fed conclusion’.

5/ 6:28 – “J.P.” says MT (Melkizedeq Theology) says “the law of ‘God’ is done away with” – this is an all or nothing misleading statement. This does not recognize many direct Bible statements – Ezk.20:10-25, Acts 15:10, 2Cor.3:11, Heb.7:12, etc.

‘God’ (“J.P.’s” xtian word – has not recognized the Torah Covenant Name of Yahweh – Com’dt #3)

6/ 6:42 – “J.P.” says MT (Melkizedeq Theology) says “the law of ‘God’ is not really Torah” – This is a confused statement – Melkizedeq Law & Covenant is Torah so is Levitical Law – They are different for different reasons Melkizedeq for Obedience – Levitical for Dis-Obedience as Ezk.20:24-25 shows.

7/ 7:32 – “J.P.” says “there was a priesthood before Mt. Sinai” – Sighting Ex.19:24 but he does not realize the word kohen does not only or always mean ‘priest’ – That this comes from Ex.18 where Jethro advises Moses to set ‘captains’ of 10’s, 50’s & 100’s –

H3548 Kohen – ko-hane’

Active participle of H3547; literally one officiating, a priest; also (by courtesy) an acting priest (although a layman): – chief ruler, X own, priest, prince, principal officer.

8/ 9:05 – Then he does this board bush skip to Ex.32 even quoting Num.3:12 not savvy enough to realize that the “firstborn” are the Melkizedeq ones spoken of at Ex.19:5-6 from all tribes & that ‘instead’ is a change in Torah (among many) to the 1 tribe of Levites. See 2 – The problem being formed is Ex.19:5-6 is a Nation ‘of’ Melkizedeq Priests VS Num.3:12 is a Nation ‘with’ Levitical Priests – Big difference!

9/ 10:29 – Then he tries a stab at ‘after the order of Melkizedeq’ saying this only means in the same way as or in the same manner as (actually making the admission that the 1st born were originally the Melkizedeq Priests); not allowing ‘order’ can also mean ‘in the succession of’ which makes more sense or the possibility of both being in play which would fit the ‘block logic’ thinking of the Hebrew mind and the Prv.25:2 thoughts of YHWH.

Making the mistake of reading his English Bible and basing his errant conclusions on that English translation

H5921 –al – after Properly the same as H5920 used as a preposition (in the singular or plural, often with prefix, or as conjugation with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications: – above, according to (-ly), after, (as) against, among, and, X as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time, X both and, by (reason of), X had the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-) on, over, than, through (-out), to, touching, X with.


10/ 11:35 – Then he appeals to a double speak song and dance flubdubbery of Heb.7:11 ‘after the order of Melkizedeq’ … ‘after the order of Aaron’. Not realizing he has just painted himself in a corner for Heb.7:12 speaks of the ‘change of the priesthood’ – not the likeness of or the manner of, but the priesthood itself. After all there are only 2 in the Bible the Levitical and the Melkizedeq; ergo Heb.7:11.

11/ 12:08 Then he does this amazing head spin razzle-dazzle; 1st correctly telling that Noah was a Melkizedeq Priest then turns to make this absurd statement that Melkizedeq was a priest after the order of Noah ??? And the Bible verse would be? Going on to demand that “order of does not and cannot ever mean in their priestly order” – which would be true for an ‘order of Noah’ conjecture but not so of the order of Melkizedeq. And what is more Melkizedeq is a designation title that Yahweh Himself uses (Ps.110, Heb.7:21).

12/ 12:47 Then he WOWs everyone using the amped words exegesis & eisegesis not realizing he consistently reads in his own thots and/or the ones he’s accepted that sport a Levitical mindset (eisegesis) not allowing the Bible to say what the Bible says the way the Bible says it. The British have a wonderful saying that fits this situation very well – Since “J. P.” is British, he will understand that he then is ‘hoisted on his own petard’.

**************************
This is only 12+ mins into J.P.’s 5hr+ error rant. We will deal with this and the balance of; on subsequent installments of Melkizedeq Corner to be posted here as they come available

As a observational side note; This guy ‘John Paul’ claims to champion the unchanged law of Torah and TaNaK – Yet – does not keep the unchanged law he champions. You can view this for yourselves on his/these videos – He has shaved his head and his beard. Most would recognize this as hypocrisy.

Note – His ‘John Paul’s’ version of ‘law’ mirrors the Rabbinic, Jewish, Messianic and Anti-missionary version of ‘law’ to include undivided&undiscerned  Melkizedeq Law mixed with Levitical law, that includes the Christian Church – of which in opposition the Christian Church flatly rejects claiming ‘No Law Grace’ despite the fact that Yahweh says that Melkizedeq Covenant & Law is grace.

The following is Levitical law.

Lev.19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Ezk.44:20 Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.

Poll – to gather the hair in back by hand – cutting off the excess

Until then please see;

https://torahwithoutrabbinics.wordpress.com/books
&
https://torahwithoutrabbinics.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/the-rightly-dividing-point/
&
https://torahwithoutrabbinics.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/melkizedeq-priesthood-challenge-series/
*
* Addendum YouTube Melchizedek Corner Video’s
Of Video 1
1 – 0 to 6:15 –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcMXQgG42_Y


Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Melkizedeq Attack 9

  1. M H Birkenhead, United Kingdom

    Shalom I understand you were having a conversation with JP at the way biblical fellowship. We were part of the fellowship and my wife said something is wrong for a long time. Ruach spoke to my wife saying remove the shackles cast all fear and dought the veil has been lifted! Since then we have come to the understanding of malkisidec but JP is using hebrews 8 v4 could you give your wisdom on this. Thanks
    ***************************************
    Answer
    Thanx for coming forward & contacting me and your words in support – I’m interested to know where this group is located – England?

    In a nutshell – JP is a defender of the status-quo Messy-antic Jewish/Xtian Levitical thot mix. But in his defence; there are many like him – Messianic, Xtian & Jewish all protecting their slice of the pie – Which has come from the same Jewish Yahshua/NT rejecting source.

    On Heb.8:4 – For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

    This was written 2000yrs ago at the point of transition – ‘should not be a priest’ – ‘according to the law’ had to do with the Num.3:12 mandate – But where are the Levitical priests now? Usurped by Rabbis in violation of the Num.3:12 mandate.

    Heb.7:11-12 tells the Heb 8:13/2Cor.3:11-13 Levitical law/priesthood vanishing away story and the reason why

    Now read Heb.8:6 on

    Hope this helps – Shalom

  2. The observation was made and the question asked – This (Messianic let alone Christian Church) movement is so divided. Why can’t (everyone) all just get along and work together

    Answer

    You ask – Why? It is a shame; but the simple answer is – Where protected views based on misconceptions, errors & lies rule – Truth is Treason.
    Lk.12:51

  3. On Mat.18

    thewaybiblicalfellowship 2 hours ago
    Sin is the transgression of the law. All of it. The sin here is not against me. That could never be said to be the case. Taking offence at something does not mean that the other person has sinned against you. They are two separate issues. There is no priesthood. Melchizedek had a priesthood, being a priest, in the same way that I would have a knighthood if I was a kngiht.

    Teddy Wilson 1 second ago
    +thewaybiblicalfellowship So, you are saying that we cannot sin against one another? You really need to grasp the meaning of YAHWEH’S Law in its fullness. Scripture says we can sin against a person in the body of Believers (1 Sam.2:25 … Mat.18:15-22). We will now take this before the Assembly, for you will not hear, nor repent of wrongdoing. I will speak no more on this matter with you out of respect for my King. May YAHWEH show you mercy on that Great Day….Shalom.

    He responded & I answered. From here we shall TAKE IT BEFORE THE ASSEMBLY. We too shall take our sword and clean up the camp from one end to the other, YAHWEH willing………

    thewaybiblicalfellowship 3 hours ago (edited)
    +Teddy Wilson I take a look at the Hebrew and Greek in the second part. There is no scriptural requirement to follow any procedure. Matthew 18 is a procedure for when a brother sins against you. Matthew hasn’t sinned against me here, he has sinned against YHVH and mislead people as to His character so severely as to present them with another god. I did contact Matthew upon releasing the video. My primary concern is not Matthew, but that this teaching is addressed in the minds of those who have heard it. As far as a procedure for what should happen if someone presents a false god to you, this is the closest thing I can think of: Deuteronomy 13:6-9 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. I’m not sure that you understand how serious it is to make the claims that Matthew is making here about YHVH and what He allegedly did to the Israelites. I invite you to watch the second and third parts where I really get into this but it is a very serious allegation to make against Him. This isn’t a case of a bit of wrong theology, this calls into question His character. If Matthew were to repent, I would gladly embrace that. Gladly. It would fill me with joy and I would immediately acknowledge that and make it known. I have no malice or bad thought towards Matthew. He is a good teacher but my priority is in undoing damage that has been done.

    Teddy Wilson 1 second ago
    +thewaybiblicalfellowship Oh, we will indeed be watching the second and third parts of this series. That you can count on. However, if you research the word SIN in Mat.18, it goes back into the Ancient Hebrew and means OFFENSE, FALL SHORT OF MARK, and has at times been more properly connected to the English word CROOKED. I am convinced that Matt has not OFFENDED Yahweh in any way by trying to teach the truth in His Debar. It is you that took offense of the teachings by your own words. Therefore, Mat.18 does apply to you in this case. We feel that it is you who needs to repent for speaking against The Priesthood. But, we wont judge that, YAHWEH will. Malkitzedek Reigns forevermore…….

    > Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 23:45:25 -0700
    > From: yst@yahsspiritoftruth.com
    > To: yahweh-613@hotmail.com
    > Subject: RE: Anti-Video
    >
    > Tempered & Even handed
    >
    > On 2015-11-03 23:36, Teddy Wilson wrote:
    > > Also, here is the comment I posted to this guy trying to get him to
    > > repent of his slander…..
    > >
    > > Well, you took a lot of time in preparation of this video teaching and
    > > that is very evident. However, you use Matts name many many times
    > > during this study. You also call him a liar etc. However, you forgot
    > > to use Scriptural steps in due process and have now made your self a
    > > slanderer of one of the Brethren. Not once did you contact Matt and
    > > approach him in the area where you thought he may be in error. Then,
    > > it would have been up to him to either answer for himself, or repent
    > > if there was any wrong doing on his part. But instead, there is name
    > > calling & slander on your part. I feel that you are in tremendous
    > > error there Bro. I also feel that you are in gross error in your views
    > > of The Malkitzedek due to your plight over English words instead of
    > > looking into the Greek & Hebrew at critical points such as ‘after or
    > > in’ the order of Malkitzedek. So, I am asking that you apologize to
    > > Matt for the slander & name calling Brother prior to our next
    > > Broadcast of The Malkitzedek Priesthood. Shalom & may Yahweh bless
    > > you.

  4. Is there a transcript of the you-tube video available?
    I cannot hear much of what is said … maybe I am blessed.
    Kind Regards
    Pieter (in the UK, but not in the way-fellowship)

  5. JP doesn’t realize that we are all firstborn if we are washed into Yah’s Salvation. We have the T-Cell healing of Yahshua’s DNA Dahm-blood. This is the Priestly cleansing we receive and the Kingly overcoming we obtain by the walking it out. Overcoming requires both.
    I have not watched the entire you tube from the UK– yet –I had to stop-gotta a gut ache….lol……But I will return to finish it. I WILL say this, The man “JP” needs to get a grip on the fact that The Scroll that Moshe’ handled called the book of the Brit, IS also contained in the Scroll of the book of Lev. The First Century Mid-rash that we see from the Set apart ones, mention that this book that is called the Lev. book is Yes, good. Because Lev. means heart- where we get out word Love. Thus my coined phrase–“the heart of the matter”. The heart of the matter is: The wife broke the husbands Heart-Lev-love. Just like A-Dohm did. But we have a husband that died. And The miracle is, This same Husband conquered non-sin flesh death , freeing us to return to the Original Promised Husband. (The same Husband) This gives us the ETERNAL HOPE of
    the non-sin-flesh status that A-Dahm and his Woman had before they put on the flesh-sin covering.
    But we all are in the learning process, and each one of us are in different places in this process.
    I wish “JP” would have simply called Mathew or corresponded with him, instead of spreading
    factions and yes Tale bearing all over You Tube.
    JP if you read this–Please, Consider what you’re doing here. You are telling a “truth” that you believe to be so. And you posted it on You Tube. So, you think you are correcting a truth, and mentioning names. This is Lash an-Harah . You should have requested permission from Mathew Nolan, and “sat down” with him to try to understand why you both see differently. Be teachable brother. Don’t tale bear.
    Shalom all.

  6. I seem to have been unblessed … was able to sort my (absence of) sound problem.
    JP seems to be afflicted with one of the 3 P’s (Presumption, Psychosis or Possession).
    Diligent study may expose which… but I lack the motivation therefore.
    A superficial appraisal finds a somewhat incoherent and inconsistent juvenile form of debate; the perseveration and fixation may indicate psychopathology; but what concerns me most is the near truths and parallelism. This latter type of “theology” is a hallmark of the Adversary and would require serious prayer for JP.
    UK laws are quite useful to combat internet slander and a formal approach to Youtube should get the videos (which is clearly not “freedom of speech” but deliberate and wilful “character assassination”) removed.
    Shalom
    Pieter

  7. “Youtube should get the videos (which is clearly not “freedom of speech” but deliberate and wilful “character assassination”) removed.”

    That is a thot – Having never done that – How would I start then how do I proceed – Still I will ask the others as well – Thanx

    • I do not think Matthew should do it as they (YT) may be spiteful and retaliate for whatever reason.
      But someone (a prospective secondary claimant) who are also affected (your booksales may drop) can initiate the “Pre-Action” correspondence. UK defamation law now requires evidence of expected financial loss if defamatory conduct / slander is not stopped.
      Going after JP will be neither profitable nor scriptural (under the latter he either needs stoning / shunning or exorcism)
      This is YT’s address:
      Legal Department
      YouTube, LLC
      901 Cherry Ave.
      San Bruno, CA 94066
      USA.
      Start with a short nice letter identifying the videos (and the “defamatory statements” ) and pointing out that this is direct slander. [Under free speech, JP could have stated his opinion without mentioning Matthew by name (only TTTT).] Ask for the videos to be removed and mention that you have been in contact with a legal co in the UK (A friend and I have a small UK claims management LLP) to proceed with a claim in the UK if necessary.
      See what they say.
      In the meantime, Ignore JP (except to pray for him) and ask everyone to “dislike” his videos on YT.
      Shalom

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s